Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Laura Malone, associated general counsel for intellectual property at The Associated Press, said names of people, companies and products cannot be protected under copyright law. Names can be protected under trademark law, but only in association with goods or services used in commerce, she said.

''Even if there was a valid trademark, the mere use of the name in a news story is not an infringement of trademark,'' Malone said Tuesday.

So what you're saying, if I'm reading you right, is that if someone else went around raping their own foster children, but calling themselves "Ted Alvin Klaudt", he would have a case for dilution of his brand and market confusion?

I bet he feels like a right chump for not registering his brand identity before now.

Perhaps we should start referring to this guy as the CONVICTED CHILD FUCKER formerly named 'Ted Alvin Klaudt'?

Having been somewhat of an asshole in times past, I thought a bit of clarification was in order. An asshole is someone that cuts you off on the freeway... Now, there's a good chance he will be someone's special asshole every night, but I don't think that's the way you were using the word.

Doesn't Ted Alvin Klaudt charge people 500 grand for using the Ted Alvin Klaudt name? then I guess I'll have to stop using Ted Alvin Klaudt's name or he might try to collect from me . ..

Tell him you're a kid, I hear they get a special deal! Seriously, the dude is over 550 pounds...http://freakbits.com/media/Ted-Alvin-Klaudt.jpg [freakbits.com] if he comes to collect, wait until he is right up to you and then walk away at a brisk pace.

He was a Republican, not that I think it's really relevant. But it is kind of funny, given that he was an advocate for the type of hollow tough-on-crime/perversion measures that a certain segment of the Republicans favor. From Wikipedia:

"While in office, he co-sponsored several bills that took aim at sex offenders"

It absolutely does affect marketability. Even if the loss of virginity doesn't affect marketability, the girls' issues forming an initmate relationship with a boyfriend (because they have flashbacks to what their foster-father did) will cause issues with future boyfriends/husbands.

So what? That's like excusing someone who kills a guy in a bar fight because he's not a serial killer who keeps his victim's head in the fridge. The difference is only a matter of degrees. Both are wrong.

Craig and Klaudt were "moral values" Republicans who sponsored numerous bills attempting to outlaw acts or discriminate against people that were guilty of things they themselves did. Both ran on campaigns that portrayed themselves as highly moral people on issues of sexual behavior (which inherently imply or explicitly state themselves to be superior to their opponents on these issues) all while engaging in pure hypocrisy. Klaudt backed numerous tough anti-pedophile laws in South Dakota and fought to keep children from getting contraception at schools in a bid to keep children from having sex. Craig has voted consistently against gay rights over the past decade. Both are utter hypocrites.

Just because people might be more sympathetic to gay sex in a bathroom, compared to child molestation, doesn't mitigate the fact that they themselves harped on the immorality of such actions, that they profited from votes gained from "taking the high road," and that they did so while engaging in the very acts they vilified.

(Side note: Craig was rumored as far back as 1982 as having been involved with male, teenage pages, so he might actually be a predator, but that's irrelevant to my point.)

I find it hard to imagine that they're now suffering anything close to the way in which being locked in a 3*3*2 meter cage for half the day is suffering. 44 years is way more than I would give even for a double murder.

How can the grandparent post get modded a "5" and the parent get a "0"? There's nothing insightful at all about the GP. It's just vocalizing the popular opinion. It certainly doesn't make a good argument.

I've noticing more and more that Slashdot mod points are used to express agreement and disagreement rather than quality of post. Slashdot is showing more mob-censorship and conformity of opinion than just about any other site.

The punishment should be proportionate to the crime. It's ludicrous to think that molestation is anywhere near as traumatic as beating, psychological abuse, torture, or imprisonment. I'm not saying any of those are ok, but Americans have some way distorted views of anything sex. I swear, if the kid is still traumatized after many years, it's because the traumatic response was manufactured by counselors and psychologists.

Yeah, parents really sympathize with the whole "tough on crime" philosophy. Two eyes and an arm for an eye. Until, at least, their boys and girls grow up and start getting in trouble and the parents realize that their kids aren't quite the princes and princesses they thought they were. And now the parents get to grow old and die with nobody to take care of them because their kids are in jail for a long, long, time.

Maybe here people are much more tough-on-crime than I am. In Finland, at least, murder gets you locked in for only 10 years [wikipedia.org]. And yet they're below the US [nationmaster.com] in overall murder rates.

I'm not saying this detracts from what your going for, but Labeling Theory seems to create a self fulfilling prophecy in the whole thing. I've always considered if an interesting thing. You call them hard criminals, you treat them like hard criminals, they become hard criminals.

Implying a causal relationship is way off base. It could just as easily indicate that Finland's low murder rates imply that strict punishments are not necessary.

To use the obligatory car analogy, it's like a small rural town not having any emissions laws for vehicles because the net pollution from a dozen cars isn't worth the effort of enforcement while a dense metropolis may require strict emissions laws to limit pollution.

To be perfectly honest, murder is probably a lesser crime. You can kill someone in a fit of rage, or by accident. You can be defending yourself. You can't accidentally rape your kids, even foster kids.

These kids were in his care, it was his job to look after them and protect them and instead he raped them. That's pretty much the most despicable thing you can do. He might not have been their father, but he was acting as their father, if you do that sort of thing to kids you're supposed to be caring for 44 years is far too lenient.

To be perfectly honest, murder is probably a lesser crime. You can kill someone in a fit of rage, or by accident. You can be defending yourself. You can't accidentally rape your kids, even foster kids.

I agree with this, and so does the legal system - hence the different categories of premeditated murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, etc. If I'm reading my sources correctly, even premeditated murder gets little over 10 years.

To be perfectly honest, murder is probably a lesser crime. You can kill someone in a fit of rage, or by accident. You can be defending yourself. You can't accidentally rape your kids, even foster kids.

You can't accidentally murder anyone. That would be manslaughter, and it carries lower penalties. Murder is premeditated killing of a person.

So you're saying a temporary nullification of one persons rights is worth a permanent nullification of another's? If you are picturing prison as a man-built hell as I think you are, you are also saying that a man getting raped in prison over and over is not the same as a woman getting raped once.

The thing is that those girls didn't have a choice about he was going to do with them. He had the choice, and he made the wrong choice. Now he gets to spend a good portion of the rest of his life in jail. He wasn't some 18 year old kid who grew up in a violent home and made some poor decisions with his girl friend and her sister. He was a grown man with the mental capacity to understand the heinous nature of his actions and yet he went through with them anyway. Why anyone is feeling sorry for him is far beyond me.

Are you seriously trying to peddle the thought that rape is "just something that happens to you. don't worry about it, you'll get over it"? Ugh. Sure, you can talk people into a PTSD, or whatever, but the problem with rape really isn't that it's happened; the trouble is with trying to cope with the fact that you (as a woman) apparently do not have full autonomy over your body, over the fact that sensations were produced in it against your will by your assailant, etc., and then trying to talk yourself into the fact that that doesn't mean that you wanted it (as you'll be told by those self-righteous conservative christians that call themselves human). The effects that has on a person, especially a (pre-)teen, who is still forming his/her personality, are enormous. How is that not a permanent effect of your "temporarily nullifying someone's right to autonomy"?

No. Murder, slavery, and imprisonment are absolute violation of others' rights. Beating, raping, maiming, bullying, are lessor violations of others' rights. It's only because of society's screwed up sensitivities that you put rape on the level of murder.

Look, some convicted slavers in New York got sentenced. The man got 3 years and his wife 11 years. Yes, for absolute violation of others' rights. They got off easy because they didn't touch any genitals. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2007/12/200 [aljazeera.net]

Sex is used as a basis to sell products across the nation every day. The media and advertisers have rammed it down our throats that beauty and sexual attractiveness mean being a skinny 19 year old girl. Whats the difference between a 19 and 17 year old girl? Essentially nothing on average. Our society has chosen numbers arbitrarily as a dividing line between those who can have sex legally.

Mix that with a society that consumes copious amounts of growth hormones in milk and meat products and has girls reachin

I agree wholeheartedly. Society has become a self-hating dichotomy thanks to ceratin religions, which teache people to hate themselves and their urges which come naturally to them. Instead of recognizing them and dealing with them in a healthy manner, they end up repressing their urges and then snapping and performing acts like child rape. See also: Catholic Priests.

Much of the damage of rape comes not from the actual act (unless it was particularly violent) , but from all of the stigma and media circuses surrounding it. Parents freak out and yell, "OH, MY GOD!" and start screaming and crying, which dosen't help matters for the victim. Sex crimes are sexy - not to you and I, but to the media and to the prosecution who know they will profit from the circus, usually causing considerable anguish to the victim because rape is excessively emotionally-charged in our society.

People loved to foam at the mouth with regard to Roman Polanski, but they don't realize that things like that were widespread in funkier times. Even his so-called "victim", who consented and enjoyed the act, just wanted everybody to drop it and shut up about it. Gore Vidal dismissed the incident in an interview, saying , "Meh. That was the norm, and she was a hussy." Mick Jagger had sex with his friend's 13 year-old daughter and I don't see anybody wanting to cart him to the gallows. Pete Townshend was caught looking at boy porn and his music still graces the introductions of CSI shows! The people who love or hate Michael Jackson may not agree with what he did, but those who understand his childhood also understand why he's a weirdo.

We must end the cognitive dissonance in society and learn to see things for what they are. It makes no sense that we have a lifetime registrant list for rapists and not for murderers!

I agree that statutory rape is a bit of a crock (19 yr old boy and 17 year old girl scenarios), but look, these are his (foster) daughters. Men are not supposed to look at their daughters, nieces, or other much younger girls in his family or under his care as sexual objects. Doing so is not merely succumbing to a normal drive, it is a pretty fundamental perversion of basic relationships.

Some states have laws that define statutory rape as having an age range limit -- e.g. you can have sex with a minor as long as you're no more than 2 years older than they are. So technically an adult and a minor can legally have consensual sex, but only if they're very close in age. This is to deal with the obvious problem of someone who's 17 yr 364 days old having sex with someone who's 18 yr 1 day old -- they're apart 2 days in age, it makes no sense that it would be illegal for them to have sex just beca

If you don't _look_, you should have several important hormone producing organs checked. Any parent or caregiver of children who hasn't thought about it is probably repressing something even more insidious. The difficulty is when you _act_ on those impulses: partly for genetic, cross-breeding reasons, and partly for our culture's understandable fear of abuse of such powerful relationships, such sexual relationships are taboo. But make no pretense that sex with teenagers, for example, has always been forbidd

Okay, when I said "look" I meant more than notice. Yes, it is perfectly natural for a parent to be aware of his children's attractiveness and sexual development. It is not healthy for him to fantasize about them. There is I think a major psychological step that lies between merely noticing and external action, that I was calling "looking".
As to the question of nature v. social convention and training, I'm willing to admit it may well be something trained into us (not to think of those under our care sexua

Our society has chosen numbers arbitrarily as a dividing line between those who can have sex legally.

Some states allow thirteen year olds to have sex with other minors (some caveats) and still others allow sex with adults so long as parental consent is given (as in married).

I completely agree with your post. Its important for people to keep in mind that murders often receive far, far lighter sentences. Likewise, often the biggest trauma associated with this type of rape is that which is brought about by societal stigma; as it doesn't appear to be a crime of hate, range, violence, etc. True rape is more oft

Mmm... I disagree in some ways. While the ages of consent are somewhat arbitrary, there is a more important condition to be taken into account here: Ted Klaudt chose to put himself in a position of responsibility and authority over two girls whom the law says must have a guardian. If he had any inkling that he would want to molest them, then he would need to recuse himself from that responsibility. Instead, he chose

While I do agree that the American advertising culture is really rather sick, we are not machines. We are not some sort of Pavlov's monkeys, conditioned to screw at the drop of a dress. We are sentient beings, and Ted Klaudt is (ostensibly) an adult who, at various points in his adult life, has been considered capable of making his own decisions for right or for wrong, and for choosing for himself what he should or should not do. Regardless of what Klaudt has seen on television or in magazines, he -- just like everyone -- is responsible for his own actions. At the very least, he is responsible for recognizing himself as capable of molesting females to whom he has a legal responsibility for.

Moreover, he lied to the girls and tricked them into this situation. Again, he abused his position of authority.

The bottom line is that this was not consensual. It was rape. You might call them 'morons,' but there was nothing I saw in the articles that said that his molesting of them was consensual. They didn't want it, he did it anyway: Rape, pure and simple. It was his choice.

All this being said... I do agree that incarceration should be rehabilitative rather than punitive. IN the vast majority of criminal cases, locking someone up does no go whatsoever, and in fact has been shown to make a person even worse. In addition... not to put too fine a point on it, but Klaudt is not a spring chicken. American prison populations have a justly-deserved reputation of being incredibly bad (to put it mildly) for child rapists. I would not bet Vegas odds on Klaudt getting through even one of his prison terms. And for the record, I do not approve.

So, in conclusion: He chose of his own free will to rape his stepdaughters, and he needs to be put away so that, somehow, that can be rehabilitated out of him so that the thought of it never happens again. No magic moving-pictures box put those ideas into his head, nobody forced him to be a rapist. At the same time, locking him away and throwing away the key does society no good. We need better rehabilitative incarceration rather than punitative. How, though, I'm afraid I don't know.

Historically, "Justice" was a function of the family. This led to private feuds and vigilantes that literally tore towns and cities apart. There is a man in prison today who harmed one of the women in my family. He was caught, tried, convicted and sent to prison. Every man in my family can look himself in the mirror and say "Justice was done," and because of that, no one has done anything rash.

Have you thought about how you intend to satisfy the families under your new sentencing gu

No more kooky than thinking that pink fairies live on the moon. You can think whatever you like, but what you think had better be backed by some solid evidence and reason as to why that's better.

Retribution against a person who has violated another by placing them in cold hard prisons is the only way to quench the primal *need* for retribution by the victim, the victims people and the victims community.

Ignore humanities primal needs at your peril, justice will be done either through the state apparatus in an orderly fashion, or in the style it was largely done before the 1900's; by the victims people metting out quick, harsh, brutal justice (occasionally against the wrong person). You see the state convinces the individuals in it that it's preferable to let it met out justice. But to be sure, if it fails to give a sense of justice to those wronged then the individuals will take the dishing out of justice back into their own hands.

And *I think* that you and the tiny fraction of people that think like you are just western middle class individuals who've been swaddled in cotton wool for your entire lives and have never suffered true violation at the hand of another. Not only that you have been led to believe that criminals are the true victims of the crime that they commit, and the victims are inanimate objects, whose feelings and needs are completely irrelevant to the matter. As you have just inferred.

Where did this poor fool get his law training? Despair can make a fool out of a man but then again raping one's daughters sort of establishes that he is warped to begin with. It seems to me that we have special places to put people who rape their daughters.

I've never heard of Ted Alvin Klaudt before, but it sounds like Ted Alvin Klaudt is a grade A jerk. Who does Ted Alvin Klaudt think Ted Alvin Klaudt is to try to claim copyright on Ted Alvin Klaudt's name? I can't wait to see Ted Alvin Klaudt get slapped down for trying to copyright Ted Alvin Klaudt....Ted Alvin Klaudt.

Did someone clone wacko lawyer Jack Thompson? It makes me nervous to have a politician with two of the three chipmunks in his name. Maybe he'll owe the trademark owner of Alvin and the Chipmunks 2/3rds of the proceeds.

That’s legally wrong on so many levels: Short words and phrases can’t be protected by federal copyright law; common law copyright has been almost entirely preempted by federal copyright law, and in any event was applicable only to unpublished works; copyright of any sort would only apply to your own creative work, and Ted Klaudt’s name wasn’t created by him (unless it’s an assumed name); fair use would in an

Since his name is related to his crime (and felony conviction), wouldn't newspapers be protected by South Dakota's Son of Sam law, preventing him from profiting from stories/descriptions of his crimes? I guess he could win and give the money to charity, but that would mean even more publicity. The whole thing's ridiculous and he deserves whatever he gets.

Laura Malone, associated general counsel for intellectual property at The Associated Press, said names of people, companies and products cannot be protected under copyright law. Names can be protected under trademark law, but only in association with goods or services used in commerce, she said.

"Even if there was a valid trademark, the mere use of the name in a news story is not an infringement of trademark," Malone said Tuesday.

Seriously. The guy wouldn't have a leg to stand on under federal law - words and short phrases cannot be copyrighted. That's why he sent the notice asserting common law copyright (which varies by state, mind you). In any case, even if that common law claim is technically legitimate, the compelling public interest in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc., would likely ensure this case was thrown out. And the title of the/. article is right on - all this idiot has done is drawn more attention to hims

Holy crap. I didn't realize that the Streisand Effect was where you suffocate your bed partner [rapidcityjournal.com]. Props to the Rapid City Journal for using "Rapist" as the first word in the headline of their story about his copyright claims. Since he is a convicted rapist, it's a matter of public record and totally OK say that Ted Klaudt is a rapist, right?

Ever get the feeling that the asshats trying to pass this type of legislation do all sorts of crazy shit, can't restrain themselves, and subconsciously want to protect us from them? Like this guy? I never trust a politician who wants to pass new laws to "protect" me from anything. Murder is illegal. Rape is illegal. Prosecute accordingly; do we really need more laws to clarify what's already illegal? We already HAVE laws against almost everything we should, I wish they'd stop grandstanding and just enforce

This particular scam has been tried before, [interesting-people.org] especially by convicts. At best it creates a lot of spurious legal paperwork that has to be dealt with. It's a great way to cause headaches for the legal folk.

Yeah, what's up with that? Americans (I am one, I'm proud of it generally) seem to take a perverse satisfaction in the fact that we have control over our prisons and they're essentially a playground for the worst, most violent despicable of our criminal elements. Prison isn't so bad if you're a monster, all the drugs, sex and violence you want. This really doesn't seem like proper punishment, and it's certainly not rehabilitation. Why is it we have essentially the most severe sentencing policies of any civilized nation, and the highest crime rate of any civilized nation?

It's a fair guess that most actually do not feel this way, considering that the Prison Rape Elimination Act was passed in 2003, during a time when those whose political ideals seem most likely to approve of retributive prison violence were in control of all major branches of government.

Yeah, let's be as brutal as we can be to the evil criminals. And those people who were wrongly convicted, well, they aren't me, and it's 100% impossible for me to ever be in that position, so I don't give a shit. Sure sucks to be them.

In principle, I'm actually on board with the shoot-them-behind-the-courthouse school of justice. I think some crimes warrant it. But in practice, I find it very hard to accept the argument that our justice system should be dishing out that sort of thing. Too much potentia

In the United States a Congressman is specifically a member of either the US Senate or US House of Representatives. This guy was a member of the South Dakota House of Representatives, which makes him a State Legislator or State Representative, but not a "Congressman".

Sorry Slashdot, but I agree completely with Ted Alvin Klaudt. If I were Ted Alvin Klaudt and had been convicted, as Ted Alvin Klaudt was, of raping my foster daughters, I too would have scrambled for ways to prevent the media from commenting on my transgressions, just like Ted Alvin Klaudt is doing. Some may say employing copyright law in the manner of Ted Alvin Klaudt constitutes blatant abuse of the legal system, but I, as Ted Alvin Klaudt, feel otherwise. Ted Alvin Klaudt hasn't done anything wrong (with respect to the copyright thing, not the rape thing), and I wish him (Ted Alvin Klaudt) the best of luck.

1) The domain name disputes are over trademark, not copyright. The rules for trademark are completely different from the rules for copyright.

2) The domain name disputes are not a direct result of any IP law - not even trademark, and certainly not copyright. They are essentially a result of regulatory policies specifically surrounding domain name management. Trademark law would not, on its own, forbid me from registering disney.com (though it would prevent me from using disney.com to compete in any commercial space where Disney is a recognized trademark).

3) In any event, even if the esteemed congressman had asserted trademark over his name, that would not forbid its use by news outlets. Trademark protection is not nearly that broad.

The copyright assertion is not only stupid, it is in direct contradiction to the law.